You're so worried about the megacorps and megabanks that you completely miss the fact that they do not define capitalism. To you they do, but to people who choose not to let them destroy their lives they are simply an example of bad apples who will one day get their reckoning. They're not something to aspire become and they're not something to be left unchecked. It needs to be dealt with and a political climate that allows for it to be dealt with will emerge over time. In the meantime the regular rich guys (thinks millions instead of billions and trillions) recognize that all of this rallying against the evil super bastards corps are nothing but a distraction and an excuse.
That was an easy one. And no, people with money are not my nemeses. I have money. I made a lot of that money through investments but the original money came from working. I pay much lower tax percentages on the money that I make by checking my portfolio than I did on the money I made by getting up and going to work every day, actually doing something.
And don't tell me that those investments are what makes the economy go. Almost my entire portfolio are in derivatives, index betting pools that don't have any connection to capital going to a corporation so it can grow. People think that Wall Street is made up of guys who buy shares in companies and then the companies use that money to build a new plant and hire new workers. That's bullshit.
I won't tell you that those investments make the economy go. But I'll tell you that there's also nothing wrong with what you did. You worked. You made money. You invested it. Someone, somewhere is finding a way to make money off of it and you've managed to bet on the right track... for now. You and I both know the tables could turn and one day you could wake up and see your portfolio at nothing. Then you'd rethink your choice about putting all your money into derivitives, but for now you're putting your money to good use. And honestly, you're no better / worse a person for having put it to work there as you would be for putting it to work at some local mom &pop shop trying to get them started. After all, then it would be them "Laboring" and you stealing all "their" money that they earned through their labor when you demand that they repay you for the risk you took when you invested in their concept.
Man, don't whine to me about "the country you grew up in"...
I don't know what country you grew up in. I do know where I grew up. And I'm also keenly aware that the country my next door neighbor grew up in may have been far different from the one I did. I didn't live on the border of Mexico or anything, I just had parents who believed a certain way and acted on those beliefs. I had parents who worked hard. And I had friends who had parents that lived off the system. I didn't even realize it growing up because my parents didn't complain about it; they just kept working on themselves and to give me a better future.
My dad is a teacher. Teachers are about as unionized as they come, but he didn't push union politics. He was happy when they got raises when other state employees didn't, but he was pissed that some teachers who sucked got to hang around at all and that unions defended absolutely shitty execution of "the craft of teaching" solely because it was a union member that was the one doing a shitty job. I learned then that unions were both good and bad. And there's no doubt in my mind that they still have their place today, but that they are also still very capable of killing the goose that lays the golden eggs... due to greed and envy more than due to the desire to exercise a god given right to the fruits of their labor.
You're the one twisting the current state of things into some horrible scenario.You're the one calling capitalism a failure. Thankfully I don't see it that way. I still see a land of opportunity and pursuit where you see a land of oppression and thievery. You say you grew up in the same USA as me? Man, we don't even live in the same one today.
I like your optimism that the American dream is still alive but you're also delusional if you don't think the lower income people are under full assault right now. Rather than set taxes to pre-Bush era the fight is simply to cut programs that were created and solvent prior to the Bush tax cuts which Obama extended. Given the amont of rhetoric coming from the Republican party which has a significant amount of influence over what is going on these days, I find it hard to just scoff at the idea that lower income people aren't being taken advantage of. When tax disparity is as high as it is these days it's really hard to draw another conclusion.
I don't think I'm delusional, and I don't believe that lower income people are under "full assault". I do believe that the standard leaning of the republican party is that people in general are rational (in psychological speak). People will make the rational decision to do nothing and get paid rather than expend energy and get paid. Hell, if I could get paid what I do at my day job to do "whatever I wanted" instead I would almost have to take that opportunity. Granted these folks aren't seeing my salary come through in their checks, but 99 weeks for most people means they got paid close to 100k as long as they said they were looking for jobs. The republicans see this and offer up alternatives like "you don't work... you don't get paid anymore". Why is this a problem again? If more people were working IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR there would be more tax revenue and more of these programs would at least be solvent. But the government tends to both want to crush the private sector with taxes and then give away that money to people who choose not to participate AND then also grow government's payroll by hiring! In that case government is the problem... not the tax rate being to low on the most productive (who pay close to half the taxes anyway).
Also, as someone who started his own business more than a decade ago and I pretty easily state that it is significantly harder to start up and become successful these days. Unless you start with money it is becoming an NBA allstar odds type of game. Sure, it still happens but it's few and far between, like people that drop out of college and become billionaires.
I run a fantasy basketball website called SignAndTrade.com... I started it with nothing but some free time and an idea. I actually have less than nothing now (borrowed from my own retirement from my day job retirement plan). I've got friends that see my website and go "damn, man... you must be makin' some bank!". I've had friends, swear to God, as me for a referral fee (jokingly) because they referred someone to the site. And I don't even charge! Five years later I've figured out that ad revenue isn't going to cut it and that I've got to either punt or come up with other streams. I'm working on the other streams and it's almost like starting over only I've already got the site going this time so I don't have to make that initial investment. Being successful with or without seed money is hard... but you're right that it's even harder when you're bootstrapping. The truth is that nobody in the USA was guaranteed a right to happiness or riches upon birth (gaining citizenship). They were only guaranteed a right to the pursuit of happiness... many people think that means the govt should coddle them. But in reality it means the government should stay the hell out of their way and let them succeed or fail without excuses.
Most of the time big money comes from other big money. Look at yesterdays story about the people behind Dragon Dictate. They got swollowed up by large coprorations that simply raped them. They aren't alone in this practice.
I guess we have to make sure we're talking the same language here to go on any further. Big money to me may be substantially smaller to me that it is to you. I still consider having made it "big" to being a millionaire even though I know that's n
Hate to burst your bubble here, but most millionaires today are self made, first generation. They worked hard to get where they are, many of them "laboring" and saving. According to Thomas J. Stanley's book, "The Millionaire Next Door: The Surprising Secrets of America's Wealthy," only 20% of millionaires inherited their riches. The other 80% are what you'd call nouveau riche: first-generation millionaires who earned their cash on their own. Many millionaires simply worked, saved, and lived within their means to generate their wealth -- think accountants and managers: regular people going to work every day. Most millionaires didn't get their riches overnight when a rich relative died -- they worked for the money. Can you believe it? They didn't steal it and they didn't inherit it! Amazing
When Mitt Romney can casually suggest that you make yourself rich by starting a business by borrowing twenty grand from your parents, without even realizing that not everyone has that kind of credit limit at The Bank Of Mom And Dad, we've slipped.
What Romney said was an idea. Many people do have that option... even if not all do. And many of them have the option because mom and dad worked so that their kids might have that option. I think it was a stupid idea either way. Borrowing money is generally asking for trouble. The businesses I've been involved in (all small) have started with nothing but ideas, not cash. They've bootstrapped themselves up to a semblance of success, but by no means make their owners rich - yet. It just means using your time to make you richer as opposed to using it to make someone else richer (staring at the tube - often for a fee).
I was told that all men were created equal, that you shouldn't have more rights just because of who your parents were. I thought this place was founded on that idea. Then I realized we only got rid of the formal titles.
So the work you do to make better lives for your family should be reset to zero when you die? Please tell me you've got some way to make it so that when I eventually get rich by working my ass off I have some way to leave it to my kids (or whoever I choose to leave it to). I already teach my kids how to live within their means and use their resources wisely. I'd trust them with the money much more than I'd trust my great uncle sam or any of those who choose to depend on him for their well being.
That's amazing! I read the definition YOU provided in your comment and came to a completely different conclusion about capitalism. It's almost like you decided to read whatever you wanted... actual words be damned.
Sure I do. It means you make money by having money, and that having money is worth more than working.
I wonder where those with the money to invest got it? I wonder if they worked for it to start with? No... it must have been given to them by some evil invisible force that's out to get the little man. But wait, some of those with money were the little man at one point... how can this be?
And just what do you think will happen if these people with money (your nemesis) guess wrong about how they should invest their money? What if they put their money to work paying someone (someone like you for example) to do something that the market doesn't want? Their money goes away. It doesn't disappear though... it just goes away from the person who put it to a crappy use and goes to someone who will put it to work doing more sustainable (profitable) things.
I'm on a bit of rant. But it's a rant of grief, not so much anger. The country in which I grew up, the USA (I don't know where you're from), is not what you seem to claim it to be, and it disheartens me to hear comments such as your own - where the big bad world is geared towards crushing those without money. Where those who labor believe that those who pay them are evil. Where those who labor choose to spend their free time watching american idol instead of doing something productive for the economy like starting their own business, reading a book, writing a book, or inventing something useful. A little "bubble gum" time is fine However, if your biggest attempt at contributing to society is getting up and going to work and being pissed at everyone else whose chosen to take risks with their time / money (in order to start a business a pay you to work) then your attempt is lame, and you, sir, are the reason for your own problems.
No, if they use it as an incentive then the point is not moot. Other companies will drop insurance too. And when that has started then doing it will no longer be a scarlet letter offense. So then your company no longer has to worry about you leaving them if they don't provide you insurance... it's not like you're going to go work somewhere else for better insurance. Hopefully your compensation will be increased enough to allow you to buy the same quality of insurance on the private market...
And to slightly further your point... quoting from today's decision by Roberts:
Today, the restrictions on government power foremost in many Americans’ minds are likely to be affirmative prohibitions,
such as contained in the Bill of Rights. These affirmative prohibitions come into play, however, only wherethe Government possesses authority to act in the firstplace. If no enumerated power authorizes Congress topass a certain law, that law may not be enacted, even if it would not violate any of the express prohibitions in the Bill of Rights or elsewhere in the Constitution.
Indeed, the Constitution did not initially include a Bill of Rights at least partly because the Framers felt the enumeration
of powers sufficed to restrain the Government.As Alexander Hamilton put it, “the Constitution is itself,in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS.” The Federalist No. 84, p. 515 (C. Rossiter
ed. 1961). And when the Bill of Rights was ratified, it made express what the enumeration of powers necessarily
implied: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution . . . are reserved to the Statesrespectively, or to the people.” U. S. Const., Amdt. 10. The Federal Government has expanded dramatically overthe past two centuries, but it still must show that a constitutional
grant of power authorizes each of its actions. See, e.g., United States v. Comstock, 560 U. S. ___ (2010).
However, the post to which you replied made a mistake of even mentioning "general welfare" since they were trying to say it didn't apply. Their point is valid. After this ruling if BigBro wants me to buy GM, then Congress make a law that says I have to buy a GM or pay a fine via the tax system. That's not the greatest precedent! If you can find where in today's ruling that is ruled out I'd be much obliged!
TFA is simply acknowledging what we already know, that Apple users have no problem paying more for things. Is that REALLY so surprising?
Except that's not what is being acknowledged. They're not paying more for the same thing.
They're paying more for things that they consider to be nicer or in some way more advantageous to them. In the hotel case maybe they are getting one that is closer to their destination or where they're more likely to meet someone famous. Maybe they just prefer the pillows at one vs the other. But they're not simply willing to pay more for the same thing - they're willing to part with more money if they feel like they're getting something better in return.
Yes, and given the choice between my 401k going to zero and overwhelming regulation and "easing" that stagnates the economy / causes looming massive inflation I'd prefer neither. There are almost always other solutions. If you're the kind of person who thinks complicated problems tends to break down into only two possible solutions, both of which suck, then you need to take some time and decide if that's really the case. You're probably in the right place to get your head right though... so lucky you.
You're against religion in schools? Just get a grip, religion in schools is here and is not going away. You think there's not enough religion in schools? Just get a grip, there's never going to be religion in schools and that's not going to change.
Interestingly, I think you made at least half of the other guy's point - if not all of it. Often it is about the perspective that one chooses to bring into a situation that makes a significant impact. Some believe religion should be banned and therefore see it EVERYWHERE like it's a virus that just won't quit encroaching. Some people believe that religion is important and therefore they see NONE of it where it is needed most. In either case, these types of people (that are on the extreme edges) likely do need to simply get a grip, take a chill pill, whatever, and realize that it's not always as "simple" as it they try to make it.
That's right, sometimes evil Apple spends it's billions on charitable donations or creating quality hardware / software. Sometimes good Apple does "bad" things like suing for no "good" reason. Microsoft does the same. Google does the same. Hell, I bet you do the same... I know I do. If you want to be "anti-foobar" there's a good chance you do need to get a grip and figure out which thing about foobar you are actually against.
What did they "take" from Apple? They paid full retail for the copies of OS X that they installed on the machines they sold.
I don't know how Apple priced their retail OS, but if they priced the OS "knowing" that each sale of the OS would have a corresponding number of hardware items purchased, then it's possible they actually were being "taken". They were basically selling the OS at a lower point that they would have if they had known it would be sold without hardware.
They took from Apple in roughly the same way that Ford "takes" from GM when someone buys a Focus instead of an Impala.
More like they took from Apple in roughly the same that Ford "takes" from GM when someone buys a Focus (only with a much more powerful Impala engine) instead of an Impala from GM. Maybe GM shouldn't sell engines separately for Impala if they're so special, but if they chose to do so and they chose to say "the only way you're getting this engine at our special price is if you agree to not install it in another car type" then that would be okay. The expectation is that they're going to get another Impala (back) on the road and that's valuable for marketing if nothing else. If they offered that deal it would be the jerk who broke the agreement's fault, not GM's, if GM later had to sue them for putting it in a Focus.
Isn't this exactly what everyone is asking the cable companies to do? Aren't we asking them to quit charging us for the crap we don't want. Don't we keep saying we're willing to pay for the stuff we do want as long as it is reasonable. I actually agree with what they're doing here and there are many people on slashdot that would be hypocrites to not do the same.
What great crime did Henry Ford commit to create his fortune? What great crime Mark Cuban commit? What great crime did Larry Page commit? They innovated. They took advantage of opportunities and the information that they acquired. They didn't do anything criminal to become wealthy.
From what i can tell you work on projects related to the medical field. Maybe you're doing it out of nobility (working for minimum wage?) or maybe that's just where you landed or maybe you're doing it because it's a living (probably a combination - not minimum wage, but less than you could get if you were elsewhere). I can see how you would feel that it is your work that isn't "getting a chance" because the money is being directed at some rich man's wetdream rather than towards your own desires. But this is just a feeling. It might be true (in this case it is), but you didn't earn the money. And worse, it might not even be totally true that you or your cause(s) won't benefit.
Just about any investment that is going to require a bunch of research and learning in order to provide a decent return is good for knowledge advancement. Shockingly, that advancement may be applicable to more than just "space mining". There could be industries that spin off of their work as well as products never before thought possible that come about through this type of exploration. Maybe even in your industry!
But let's not ignore the obvious problem with your wishing for the government to take the money so they could allocate it. Let's say it cost these guys $10 billion to get going. There is hope of them making many times that in years to come. At a 30% tax rate (forget the 70% you miss so much) the payback on that money pretty much comes in the first profitable year and then keeps on giving. Your desire to not have them spend this money now and to have the government do it for them instead would cost your cause untold amounts in lost tax revenues that could be passed along to your humanitarian cause. No doubt, I can think of a ton of worse ways to invest this money (allocate this money) and I don't even work for the government!
... it is just the rest of us that have to suffer from the massive misallocation of resources...
The resources aren't yours and you don't have any right to them. Who are you to decide how they should be allocated or what is "misallocated"? Go make your own billions and then allocate / misallocate them however you see fit.
So your concern isn't so much with the law... it's with how you think it will be applied (ie. nudgenudgewinkwink). Everything you said substantiated your previously posted opinion and I do appreciate the references. They were an informative read. I'm not sure I agree that this law is some sort of back door into getting legal backing requiring teaching of creationism. Rather it is more like where "they" should have started.
I can understand your line of thinking based on the history you provided. However, it seems like in Kitzmiller v Dover (not Tennessee) the complaint was that teachers were REQUIRED to present creationism and students were essentially forced to be subjected to creationism in the classroom and therefore violated the 1st amendment.
I don't see this sort of "I want the law to require it to be taught" going here... it is instead a "if you want to present other possibilities then go for it". It is not required, but it's not punishable either.
I don't know where, over time, this actually takes things, but in and of itself the law is what it is, nothing more and nothing less. I, sadly, have no choice but to see your take on it because MANY laws are misused and / or twisted (take commerse and healthcare), but that's what the courts are for supposedly. To fix things where the law makers screw up and the people have the guts to call them on it. Here's hoping the courts get all of these things right.
The early federal government needed the protection from all the curches and such.
I don't think I've ever heard that take on it... you're saying that the soon to be existing federal government was afraid of the religious fringe(s) and that is why they wrote into the constitution that there would be no religion OF the government that will be pushed on the people? They were protecting the government from the religious as opposed to protecting the people from a religious governemnt?
Can you provide some links that explain the first amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" in the light that that you've asserted?
Well, why don't you provide us with a "passing familiarity" with the history related laws in Tennessee. I for one am very interested in learning something... especially from a primary source such as yourself. Please share.
Why is this insightful? Did anyone even read the links that this AC goober posted?
The first sentence just says that a group of students who used a particular textbook wouldn't get credit because the University of Cali system didn't think the books were scientifically sound (they included christian viewpoints in ADDITION to all of the required material). When they got sued a court said "well, you didn't prove the the University of Cali was basing their decision on animus or being irrational so it is constitutional for them to reject your course." It's basically up to them as long as their not just being a putz about it.
The "Cali told Kansas students not to even apply link" was simply a letter written by someone to the regents encouraging them to not accept applications from Kansas students. I don't see anything that says that the "Universities of California" actually paid any attention. The other link to "holysmoke" was a blog post of someone's opinion and a bunch of links related to the Kansas deal... not something of substance... and certainly not anything that adds value to the discussion. Give me a break.
> You want to just walk away and ignore the situation entirely.
No... as far I can tell terjeber just said that if they decide they want to throw a tantrum then it's fine to walk away from them.
Jennifer from the article "tried to help a friend". She asked them about it first. She went up the chain of command. She didn't just walk away. She's no longer employed there, but she's still shedding light on the situation. Just because you find a new employer after leaving the one that was making you do stupid stuff doesn't mean you have to let them off the hook for what they did. In fact, it means quite the opposite. At that point you can go all out without fear of you employment with them being terminated.
Choosing to walk away from a crappy employer can be very liberating and it doesn't require that you simply let it go at that.
You and I both know that if I wanted I could find a website that says "Supporting beastiality is a fundamentally Chist-like thing to do". Will that be enough for you to hop on that band wagon too - or to expect that Christians really believe that - or for that matter that Christ would have "supported" it?
The website shows only that there are in fact gay christians. I'm pretty sure nothing I said precluded that and I wouldn't argue it for a second. I would however argue exactly what I did argue - that love transcends transgressions and that supporting someone's choices is different that supporting that person. You can do the latter without the former.
I'm not Christ, and I can't tell you what he thinks other than what he said. Christ defended a prostitute and claimed her as "good" as anyone else in his final days, but he didn't support what she in particular did, nor did he support prostitution in general, nor would he (I believe) have supported legalizing it [that never came up so I can't be sure]. But to argue like the website you sent that because God loves gays too and that God doesn't want gays treated unfairly must mean that God supports gay marriage is nothing more than shenanigans and fiddling with words... the pharacies did the same thing.
You're right. They should really include the probability of some idiot(s) not performing some task(s) that was assumed to be done in the probability calculation. Then they can atleast get a better sets of bounds...
The mathematician could then either report something more like "if a, b, c, d, and e are all done on schedule per the specs then the probability of x event is.0034, but if we actually take into account the probability of these items getting done according to the specifications then the new probability of x event is.1921... in a perfect system where the the design in safe in pretty good shape, but someone is going to f-ck this up... so we need an even better design that either eliminates part or all of 'a,b,c,d,e' or that makes some other improvement that allows for screwups."
My father did not support a lot of the things I did. Some of the girls I dated. Some of crap I got into. Some of my life choices were simply not supportable. It doesn't mean that he didn't support ME when possible and try to help me when it wasn't enabling. That he didn't support my choices didn't mean that he didn't love me regardless of my decisions. But that he loved me definitely doesn't automatically mean that he supported what I did... in this case you can have it both ways because it is two different things... just don't try to treat them as if they are the same. Jesus would likely not have "supported gay marriage", but he would have loved those getting married regardless.
Duh! Obviously Zimmerman heard "We... need you to follow him".
What was really impressive to me was not when the media decided to start removing parts of the discussion (eg. Looks no good... is black). That's easy. Just a little tricky editing and hope no one catches you. [fail, btw, NBC]
What was actually amazing though was when they started ADDING words that would have changed the investigation to be a hate crime investigation rather than just two normal citizens.
Did he say 'coon'.... I think he did... did you hear it? No? Yes you did... listen again. Right.... THERE! You hear it? No? Are you Eff-ing deaf? Listen. He said 'coon'! I swear that eff-ing spic --- I mean, honky... we can't call this guy hispanic or we really lose the ratings ---... said 'coon'.
After they did that it was a no brainer to expect the editing out of important content to get the same bs race baiting idea across. This is why they (atleast used to) teach people to get more than one source of information and when possible make use of primary sources before fixating one's opinion.
If dude was beating Zimmerman the way Zimmerman claims to have been beaten then he has no reason to apologize for "murdering" anyone, b/c he didn't "murder" anyone. He could express his sadness for the mom and dad who no longer have a child, but he has no reason to "apologize" as he did nothing wrong in attempting to keep his own person intact.
You let me know if next time you are involved in a car accident in which you are not at fault.... you let me know how your attorney feels about you "apologizing" to the person for their f-cked up ride. Your attorney will tell you to zip it and MAYBE they'll prepare a statement on your behalf because, well... obviously someone must be guilty if they apologize...
Slashdot Mirror
You're so worried about the megacorps and megabanks that you completely miss the fact that they do not define capitalism. To you they do, but to people who choose not to let them destroy their lives they are simply an example of bad apples who will one day get their reckoning. They're not something to aspire become and they're not something to be left unchecked. It needs to be dealt with and a political climate that allows for it to be dealt with will emerge over time. In the meantime the regular rich guys (thinks millions instead of billions and trillions) recognize that all of this rallying against the evil super bastards corps are nothing but a distraction and an excuse.
That was an easy one. And no, people with money are not my nemeses. I have money. I made a lot of that money through investments but the original money came from working. I pay much lower tax percentages on the money that I make by checking my portfolio than I did on the money I made by getting up and going to work every day, actually doing something. And don't tell me that those investments are what makes the economy go. Almost my entire portfolio are in derivatives, index betting pools that don't have any connection to capital going to a corporation so it can grow. People think that Wall Street is made up of guys who buy shares in companies and then the companies use that money to build a new plant and hire new workers. That's bullshit.
I won't tell you that those investments make the economy go. But I'll tell you that there's also nothing wrong with what you did. You worked. You made money. You invested it. Someone, somewhere is finding a way to make money off of it and you've managed to bet on the right track... for now. You and I both know the tables could turn and one day you could wake up and see your portfolio at nothing. Then you'd rethink your choice about putting all your money into derivitives, but for now you're putting your money to good use. And honestly, you're no better / worse a person for having put it to work there as you would be for putting it to work at some local mom &pop shop trying to get them started. After all, then it would be them "Laboring" and you stealing all "their" money that they earned through their labor when you demand that they repay you for the risk you took when you invested in their concept.
Man, don't whine to me about "the country you grew up in"...
I don't know what country you grew up in. I do know where I grew up. And I'm also keenly aware that the country my next door neighbor grew up in may have been far different from the one I did. I didn't live on the border of Mexico or anything, I just had parents who believed a certain way and acted on those beliefs. I had parents who worked hard. And I had friends who had parents that lived off the system. I didn't even realize it growing up because my parents didn't complain about it; they just kept working on themselves and to give me a better future.
My dad is a teacher. Teachers are about as unionized as they come, but he didn't push union politics. He was happy when they got raises when other state employees didn't, but he was pissed that some teachers who sucked got to hang around at all and that unions defended absolutely shitty execution of "the craft of teaching" solely because it was a union member that was the one doing a shitty job. I learned then that unions were both good and bad. And there's no doubt in my mind that they still have their place today, but that they are also still very capable of killing the goose that lays the golden eggs... due to greed and envy more than due to the desire to exercise a god given right to the fruits of their labor.
You're the one twisting the current state of things into some horrible scenario.You're the one calling capitalism a failure. Thankfully I don't see it that way. I still see a land of opportunity and pursuit where you see a land of oppression and thievery. You say you grew up in the same USA as me? Man, we don't even live in the same one today.
I like your optimism that the American dream is still alive but you're also delusional if you don't think the lower income people are under full assault right now. Rather than set taxes to pre-Bush era the fight is simply to cut programs that were created and solvent prior to the Bush tax cuts which Obama extended. Given the amont of rhetoric coming from the Republican party which has a significant amount of influence over what is going on these days, I find it hard to just scoff at the idea that lower income people aren't being taken advantage of. When tax disparity is as high as it is these days it's really hard to draw another conclusion.
I don't think I'm delusional, and I don't believe that lower income people are under "full assault". I do believe that the standard leaning of the republican party is that people in general are rational (in psychological speak). People will make the rational decision to do nothing and get paid rather than expend energy and get paid. Hell, if I could get paid what I do at my day job to do "whatever I wanted" instead I would almost have to take that opportunity. Granted these folks aren't seeing my salary come through in their checks, but 99 weeks for most people means they got paid close to 100k as long as they said they were looking for jobs. The republicans see this and offer up alternatives like "you don't work... you don't get paid anymore". Why is this a problem again? If more people were working IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR there would be more tax revenue and more of these programs would at least be solvent. But the government tends to both want to crush the private sector with taxes and then give away that money to people who choose not to participate AND then also grow government's payroll by hiring! In that case government is the problem... not the tax rate being to low on the most productive (who pay close to half the taxes anyway).
Also, as someone who started his own business more than a decade ago and I pretty easily state that it is significantly harder to start up and become successful these days. Unless you start with money it is becoming an NBA allstar odds type of game. Sure, it still happens but it's few and far between, like people that drop out of college and become billionaires.
I run a fantasy basketball website called SignAndTrade.com... I started it with nothing but some free time and an idea. I actually have less than nothing now (borrowed from my own retirement from my day job retirement plan). I've got friends that see my website and go "damn, man... you must be makin' some bank!". I've had friends, swear to God, as me for a referral fee (jokingly) because they referred someone to the site. And I don't even charge! Five years later I've figured out that ad revenue isn't going to cut it and that I've got to either punt or come up with other streams. I'm working on the other streams and it's almost like starting over only I've already got the site going this time so I don't have to make that initial investment. Being successful with or without seed money is hard... but you're right that it's even harder when you're bootstrapping. The truth is that nobody in the USA was guaranteed a right to happiness or riches upon birth (gaining citizenship). They were only guaranteed a right to the pursuit of happiness... many people think that means the govt should coddle them. But in reality it means the government should stay the hell out of their way and let them succeed or fail without excuses.
Most of the time big money comes from other big money. Look at yesterdays story about the people behind Dragon Dictate. They got swollowed up by large coprorations that simply raped them. They aren't alone in this practice.
I guess we have to make sure we're talking the same language here to go on any further. Big money to me may be substantially smaller to me that it is to you. I still consider having made it "big" to being a millionaire even though I know that's n
We call this force "inheritance"...
Hate to burst your bubble here, but most millionaires today are self made, first generation. They worked hard to get where they are, many of them "laboring" and saving. According to Thomas J. Stanley's book, "The Millionaire Next Door: The Surprising Secrets of America's Wealthy," only 20% of millionaires inherited their riches. The other 80% are what you'd call nouveau riche: first-generation millionaires who earned their cash on their own. Many millionaires simply worked, saved, and lived within their means to generate their wealth -- think accountants and managers: regular people going to work every day. Most millionaires didn't get their riches overnight when a rich relative died -- they worked for the money. Can you believe it? They didn't steal it and they didn't inherit it! Amazing
When Mitt Romney can casually suggest that you make yourself rich by starting a business by borrowing twenty grand from your parents, without even realizing that not everyone has that kind of credit limit at The Bank Of Mom And Dad, we've slipped.
What Romney said was an idea. Many people do have that option... even if not all do. And many of them have the option because mom and dad worked so that their kids might have that option. I think it was a stupid idea either way. Borrowing money is generally asking for trouble. The businesses I've been involved in (all small) have started with nothing but ideas, not cash. They've bootstrapped themselves up to a semblance of success, but by no means make their owners rich - yet. It just means using your time to make you richer as opposed to using it to make someone else richer (staring at the tube - often for a fee).
I was told that all men were created equal, that you shouldn't have more rights just because of who your parents were. I thought this place was founded on that idea. Then I realized we only got rid of the formal titles.
So the work you do to make better lives for your family should be reset to zero when you die? Please tell me you've got some way to make it so that when I eventually get rich by working my ass off I have some way to leave it to my kids (or whoever I choose to leave it to). I already teach my kids how to live within their means and use their resources wisely. I'd trust them with the money much more than I'd trust my great uncle sam or any of those who choose to depend on him for their well being.
That's amazing! I read the definition YOU provided in your comment and came to a completely different conclusion about capitalism. It's almost like you decided to read whatever you wanted... actual words be damned.
Sure I do. It means you make money by having money, and that having money is worth more than working.
I wonder where those with the money to invest got it? I wonder if they worked for it to start with? No... it must have been given to them by some evil invisible force that's out to get the little man. But wait, some of those with money were the little man at one point... how can this be?
And just what do you think will happen if these people with money (your nemesis) guess wrong about how they should invest their money? What if they put their money to work paying someone (someone like you for example) to do something that the market doesn't want? Their money goes away. It doesn't disappear though... it just goes away from the person who put it to a crappy use and goes to someone who will put it to work doing more sustainable (profitable) things.
I'm on a bit of rant. But it's a rant of grief, not so much anger. The country in which I grew up, the USA (I don't know where you're from), is not what you seem to claim it to be, and it disheartens me to hear comments such as your own - where the big bad world is geared towards crushing those without money. Where those who labor believe that those who pay them are evil. Where those who labor choose to spend their free time watching american idol instead of doing something productive for the economy like starting their own business, reading a book, writing a book, or inventing something useful. A little "bubble gum" time is fine However, if your biggest attempt at contributing to society is getting up and going to work and being pissed at everyone else whose chosen to take risks with their time / money (in order to start a business a pay you to work) then your attempt is lame, and you, sir, are the reason for your own problems.
No, if they use it as an incentive then the point is not moot. Other companies will drop insurance too. And when that has started then doing it will no longer be a scarlet letter offense. So then your company no longer has to worry about you leaving them if they don't provide you insurance... it's not like you're going to go work somewhere else for better insurance. Hopefully your compensation will be increased enough to allow you to buy the same quality of insurance on the private market...
Today, the restrictions on government power foremost in many Americans’ minds are likely to be affirmative prohibitions, such as contained in the Bill of Rights. These affirmative prohibitions come into play, however, only wherethe Government possesses authority to act in the firstplace. If no enumerated power authorizes Congress topass a certain law, that law may not be enacted, even if it would not violate any of the express prohibitions in the Bill of Rights or elsewhere in the Constitution.
Indeed, the Constitution did not initially include a Bill of Rights at least partly because the Framers felt the enumeration of powers sufficed to restrain the Government.As Alexander Hamilton put it, “the Constitution is itself,in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS.” The Federalist No. 84, p. 515 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961). And when the Bill of Rights was ratified, it made express what the enumeration of powers necessarily implied: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution . . . are reserved to the Statesrespectively, or to the people.” U. S. Const., Amdt. 10. The Federal Government has expanded dramatically overthe past two centuries, but it still must show that a constitutional grant of power authorizes each of its actions. See, e.g., United States v. Comstock, 560 U. S. ___ (2010).
However, the post to which you replied made a mistake of even mentioning "general welfare" since they were trying to say it didn't apply. Their point is valid. After this ruling if BigBro wants me to buy GM, then Congress make a law that says I have to buy a GM or pay a fine via the tax system. That's not the greatest precedent! If you can find where in today's ruling that is ruled out I'd be much obliged!
TFA is simply acknowledging what we already know, that Apple users have no problem paying more for things. Is that REALLY so surprising?
Except that's not what is being acknowledged. They're not paying more for the same thing.
They're paying more for things that they consider to be nicer or in some way more advantageous to them. In the hotel case maybe they are getting one that is closer to their destination or where they're more likely to meet someone famous. Maybe they just prefer the pillows at one vs the other. But they're not simply willing to pay more for the same thing - they're willing to part with more money if they feel like they're getting something better in return.
Yes, and given the choice between my 401k going to zero and overwhelming regulation and "easing" that stagnates the economy / causes looming massive inflation I'd prefer neither. There are almost always other solutions. If you're the kind of person who thinks complicated problems tends to break down into only two possible solutions, both of which suck, then you need to take some time and decide if that's really the case. You're probably in the right place to get your head right though... so lucky you.
You're against religion in schools? Just get a grip, religion in schools is here and is not going away. You think there's not enough religion in schools? Just get a grip, there's never going to be religion in schools and that's not going to change.
Interestingly, I think you made at least half of the other guy's point - if not all of it. Often it is about the perspective that one chooses to bring into a situation that makes a significant impact. Some believe religion should be banned and therefore see it EVERYWHERE like it's a virus that just won't quit encroaching. Some people believe that religion is important and therefore they see NONE of it where it is needed most. In either case, these types of people (that are on the extreme edges) likely do need to simply get a grip, take a chill pill, whatever, and realize that it's not always as "simple" as it they try to make it.
That's right, sometimes evil Apple spends it's billions on charitable donations or creating quality hardware / software. Sometimes good Apple does "bad" things like suing for no "good" reason. Microsoft does the same. Google does the same. Hell, I bet you do the same... I know I do. If you want to be "anti-foobar" there's a good chance you do need to get a grip and figure out which thing about foobar you are actually against.
What did they "take" from Apple? They paid full retail for the copies of OS X that they installed on the machines they sold.
I don't know how Apple priced their retail OS, but if they priced the OS "knowing" that each sale of the OS would have a corresponding number of hardware items purchased, then it's possible they actually were being "taken". They were basically selling the OS at a lower point that they would have if they had known it would be sold without hardware.
They took from Apple in roughly the same way that Ford "takes" from GM when someone buys a Focus instead of an Impala.
More like they took from Apple in roughly the same that Ford "takes" from GM when someone buys a Focus (only with a much more powerful Impala engine) instead of an Impala from GM. Maybe GM shouldn't sell engines separately for Impala if they're so special, but if they chose to do so and they chose to say "the only way you're getting this engine at our special price is if you agree to not install it in another car type" then that would be okay. The expectation is that they're going to get another Impala (back) on the road and that's valuable for marketing if nothing else. If they offered that deal it would be the jerk who broke the agreement's fault, not GM's, if GM later had to sue them for putting it in a Focus.
Isn't this exactly what everyone is asking the cable companies to do? Aren't we asking them to quit charging us for the crap we don't want. Don't we keep saying we're willing to pay for the stuff we do want as long as it is reasonable. I actually agree with what they're doing here and there are many people on slashdot that would be hypocrites to not do the same.
And in an ironic twist... he'd get credit for "time served" for the time spent creating the items that got him into court in the first place.
What great crime did Henry Ford commit to create his fortune? What great crime Mark Cuban commit? What great crime did Larry Page commit? They innovated. They took advantage of opportunities and the information that they acquired. They didn't do anything criminal to become wealthy.
From what i can tell you work on projects related to the medical field. Maybe you're doing it out of nobility (working for minimum wage?) or maybe that's just where you landed or maybe you're doing it because it's a living (probably a combination - not minimum wage, but less than you could get if you were elsewhere). I can see how you would feel that it is your work that isn't "getting a chance" because the money is being directed at some rich man's wetdream rather than towards your own desires. But this is just a feeling. It might be true (in this case it is), but you didn't earn the money. And worse, it might not even be totally true that you or your cause(s) won't benefit.
Just about any investment that is going to require a bunch of research and learning in order to provide a decent return is good for knowledge advancement. Shockingly, that advancement may be applicable to more than just "space mining". There could be industries that spin off of their work as well as products never before thought possible that come about through this type of exploration. Maybe even in your industry!
But let's not ignore the obvious problem with your wishing for the government to take the money so they could allocate it. Let's say it cost these guys $10 billion to get going. There is hope of them making many times that in years to come. At a 30% tax rate (forget the 70% you miss so much) the payback on that money pretty much comes in the first profitable year and then keeps on giving. Your desire to not have them spend this money now and to have the government do it for them instead would cost your cause untold amounts in lost tax revenues that could be passed along to your humanitarian cause. No doubt, I can think of a ton of worse ways to invest this money (allocate this money) and I don't even work for the government!
... it is just the rest of us that have to suffer from the massive misallocation of resources...
The resources aren't yours and you don't have any right to them. Who are you to decide how they should be allocated or what is "misallocated"? Go make your own billions and then allocate / misallocate them however you see fit.
So your concern isn't so much with the law... it's with how you think it will be applied (ie. nudgenudgewinkwink). Everything you said substantiated your previously posted opinion and I do appreciate the references. They were an informative read. I'm not sure I agree that this law is some sort of back door into getting legal backing requiring teaching of creationism. Rather it is more like where "they" should have started.
I can understand your line of thinking based on the history you provided. However, it seems like in Kitzmiller v Dover (not Tennessee) the complaint was that teachers were REQUIRED to present creationism and students were essentially forced to be subjected to creationism in the classroom and therefore violated the 1st amendment.
I don't see this sort of "I want the law to require it to be taught" going here... it is instead a "if you want to present other possibilities then go for it". It is not required, but it's not punishable either.
I don't know where, over time, this actually takes things, but in and of itself the law is what it is, nothing more and nothing less. I, sadly, have no choice but to see your take on it because MANY laws are misused and / or twisted (take commerse and healthcare), but that's what the courts are for supposedly. To fix things where the law makers screw up and the people have the guts to call them on it. Here's hoping the courts get all of these things right.
The early federal government needed the protection from all the curches and such.
I don't think I've ever heard that take on it... you're saying that the soon to be existing federal government was afraid of the religious fringe(s) and that is why they wrote into the constitution that there would be no religion OF the government that will be pushed on the people? They were protecting the government from the religious as opposed to protecting the people from a religious governemnt?
Can you provide some links that explain the first amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" in the light that that you've asserted?
Well, why don't you provide us with a "passing familiarity" with the history related laws in Tennessee. I for one am very interested in learning something... especially from a primary source such as yourself. Please share.
Why is this insightful? Did anyone even read the links that this AC goober posted?
The first sentence just says that a group of students who used a particular textbook wouldn't get credit because the University of Cali system didn't think the books were scientifically sound (they included christian viewpoints in ADDITION to all of the required material). When they got sued a court said "well, you didn't prove the the University of Cali was basing their decision on animus or being irrational so it is constitutional for them to reject your course." It's basically up to them as long as their not just being a putz about it.
The "Cali told Kansas students not to even apply link" was simply a letter written by someone to the regents encouraging them to not accept applications from Kansas students. I don't see anything that says that the "Universities of California" actually paid any attention. The other link to "holysmoke" was a blog post of someone's opinion and a bunch of links related to the Kansas deal... not something of substance... and certainly not anything that adds value to the discussion. Give me a break.
> You want to just walk away and ignore the situation entirely.
No... as far I can tell terjeber just said that if they decide they want to throw a tantrum then it's fine to walk away from them.
Jennifer from the article "tried to help a friend". She asked them about it first. She went up the chain of command. She didn't just walk away. She's no longer employed there, but she's still shedding light on the situation. Just because you find a new employer after leaving the one that was making you do stupid stuff doesn't mean you have to let them off the hook for what they did. In fact, it means quite the opposite. At that point you can go all out without fear of you employment with them being terminated.
Choosing to walk away from a crappy employer can be very liberating and it doesn't require that you simply let it go at that.
You and I both know that if I wanted I could find a website that says "Supporting beastiality is a fundamentally Chist-like thing to do". Will that be enough for you to hop on that band wagon too - or to expect that Christians really believe that - or for that matter that Christ would have "supported" it?
The website shows only that there are in fact gay christians. I'm pretty sure nothing I said precluded that and I wouldn't argue it for a second. I would however argue exactly what I did argue - that love transcends transgressions and that supporting someone's choices is different that supporting that person. You can do the latter without the former.
I'm not Christ, and I can't tell you what he thinks other than what he said. Christ defended a prostitute and claimed her as "good" as anyone else in his final days, but he didn't support what she in particular did, nor did he support prostitution in general, nor would he (I believe) have supported legalizing it [that never came up so I can't be sure]. But to argue like the website you sent that because God loves gays too and that God doesn't want gays treated unfairly must mean that God supports gay marriage is nothing more than shenanigans and fiddling with words... the pharacies did the same thing.
You're right. They should really include the probability of some idiot(s) not performing some task(s) that was assumed to be done in the probability calculation. Then they can atleast get a better sets of bounds...
.0034, but if we actually take into account the probability of these items getting done according to the specifications then the new probability of x event is .1921... in a perfect system where the the design in safe in pretty good shape, but someone is going to f-ck this up... so we need an even better design that either eliminates part or all of 'a,b,c,d,e' or that makes some other improvement that allows for screwups."
The mathematician could then either report something more like "if a, b, c, d, and e are all done on schedule per the specs then the probability of x event is
Jesus the man would have supported gay marriage
I think you might have overstepped there.
My father did not support a lot of the things I did. Some of the girls I dated. Some of crap I got into. Some of my life choices were simply not supportable. It doesn't mean that he didn't support ME when possible and try to help me when it wasn't enabling. That he didn't support my choices didn't mean that he didn't love me regardless of my decisions. But that he loved me definitely doesn't automatically mean that he supported what I did... in this case you can have it both ways because it is two different things... just don't try to treat them as if they are the same. Jesus would likely not have "supported gay marriage", but he would have loved those getting married regardless.
Without sponsorship it is paid for by...?
What was really impressive to me was not when the media decided to start removing parts of the discussion (eg. Looks no good... is black). That's easy. Just a little tricky editing and hope no one catches you. [fail, btw, NBC]
What was actually amazing though was when they started ADDING words that would have changed the investigation to be a hate crime investigation rather than just two normal citizens.
Did he say 'coon'.... I think he did... did you hear it? No? Yes you did... listen again. Right.... THERE! You hear it? No? Are you Eff-ing deaf? Listen. He said 'coon'! I swear that eff-ing spic --- I mean, honky... we can't call this guy hispanic or we really lose the ratings ---... said 'coon'.
After they did that it was a no brainer to expect the editing out of important content to get the same bs race baiting idea across. This is why they (atleast used to) teach people to get more than one source of information and when possible make use of primary sources before fixating one's opinion.
If dude was beating Zimmerman the way Zimmerman claims to have been beaten then he has no reason to apologize for "murdering" anyone, b/c he didn't "murder" anyone. He could express his sadness for the mom and dad who no longer have a child, but he has no reason to "apologize" as he did nothing wrong in attempting to keep his own person intact.
You let me know if next time you are involved in a car accident in which you are not at fault.... you let me know how your attorney feels about you "apologizing" to the person for their f-cked up ride. Your attorney will tell you to zip it and MAYBE they'll prepare a statement on your behalf because, well... obviously someone must be guilty if they apologize...